9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (5) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be calculated on the basis of the provisions of s. 271(1)(c), as they stood prior to their amendment in 1968 or whether the provisions of that section as amended in 1968, are applicable ? " Gurbachan Singh was carrying on his business as a sole proprietor in the name of M/s. General Radiator Workshop and was engaged in the manufacture and sale of car radiators and components thereof. For the assessment year 1965-66, he filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 13,831. This was on October 15, 1965. Before the assessment was made, he filed a revised return of his income on November 13, 1969, declaring an income of Rs. 7,393. Gurbachan Singh died and was represented in the assessment proceedings by his legal representati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bank and had suppressed his income to the extent of Rs. 26,943. He, accordingly, imposed a penalty of Rs. 26,943. As regards the quantum of penalty, the IAC was of the view that though the original return was filed on October 15, 1965, the revised return was filed only on November 13, 1969, which was after the amendment of the provisions of s. 271(1) and which came into force with effect from April 1, 1968. The minimum penalty under the provisions of the amended section was a sum equal to the amount of income sought to be concealed. According to the IAC, as the revised return was filed after April 1, 1968, the amended section would be applicable to the case of the assessee. The Tribunal, on appeal by the assessee, agreed with the conclus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the original return on the basis of which the assessment proceedings were held. The Tribunal held that there was no continuing default in the case of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal also held that the penalty should be calculated on the basis of the unamended provisions of s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act, as they existed prior to April 1, 1968, inasmuch as the original return was filed on October 15, 1965, and the concealment took place when the assessee filed the original return itself. We are of the opinion that the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is correct in the present case. Some judgments of the High Courts were cited before us where, after completion of the original assessment, notice under s. 148 of the Act was issued and the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
